HANNO v. SHEAHAN

The opinion of the court was delivered by: REBECCA PALLMEYER, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs John Hanno and Christina Reitz brought this action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Cook County Sheriff's
deputies violated their rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and
Eighth Amendments, in the course of effectuating an eviction
order. Plaintiffs allege that the officers barged into their
home, searched their bodies and their home for weapons, refused
to allow Reitz to sit down or call an ambulance when she suffered
a heart attack, and stole $1000 cash and various items of jewelry
from their home.*fn1 Sheriff Sheahan now moves for summary
judgment, arguing that the evidence does not establish any
constitutional violations and that, even if the deputies violated
Plaintiffs' rights, there is no basis for a judgment against the
Sheriff under the Monell doctrine. For the reasons set forth
here, Defendant's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On April 27, 2000, an Illinois state court issued an order for
possession of the premises at 6 North Trail, Lemont, Illinois
(the "residence") in favor of TCF Bank in a mortgage foreclosure
action. (Defendant's Local Rule 56.1(a) Statement, hereinafter,
"Def.'s 56.1(a)" ¶ 1.) The order named both John Hanno, who owned the house, and Christina Reitz,
who lived with him. (Id. ¶ 4; Ex. C to Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment, hereinafter, "Def.'s Mem.," at 5.)

Plaintiffs were present at their residence on June 21, 2000
when Deputies Matthew Manion and Brian Davenport of the Cook
County Sheriff's Department arrived with a crew of three private
movers to evict Plaintiffs. (Plaintiffs' Local Rule 56.1(a)
Statement, hereinafter, "Pls.' 56.1(a)," ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs awoke
that morning to the sound of the police pounding on the back
door. (Id. ¶¶ 30, 31.) When Plaintiffs opened the door to
investigate, the two deputies along with two others*fn2
"barged in" without announcing themselves or their purpose.
(Id. ¶¶ 32, 33, 35.)*fn3 The police wore bulletproof vests
and carried guns as they entered the residence. (Id. ¶ 33.)
Yelling at Plaintiffs in a "rough, angry voice," they ordered
Plaintiffs to stand up against a wall with their hands raised.
(Id. ¶¶ 34, 36.) According to Hanno, "it felt like a drug
raid." (Id. ¶ 37.) Plaintiffs were never handcuffed, however,
were not given Miranda warnings, and were never told they were
under arrest. (Def.'s 56.1(a) ¶¶ 9, 10, 11.) Plaintiff Hanno saw
the officers' weapons, but they were never drawn. (Id. ¶ 12;
Plaintiffs' Response to Def.'s 56.1(a), hereinafter, "Pls.'
Res.," ¶ 12.) At no point did the deputies physically touch the
Plaintiffs. (Def.'s 56.1(a) ¶ 6.)

Plaintiffs note that the eviction order in the deputies'
possession named only two people as residents, and that
Plaintiffs confirmed, in response to the deputies' questions,
that they were the only two persons there. (Pls.' 56.1(a) ¶ 39.)
They note, further, that the search of the residence occurred
after Plaintiffs had assured the police that no weapons were on
the premises and that the police had no reason to believe this was untrue. (Id. ¶ 40.)
The officers nevertheless conducted a full search of the house
pursuant, according to the deputies' deposition testimony, to
Department policy. (Pls.' 56.1(a) ¶¶ 38, 40, 41.) As the officers
conducted the search, Plaintiffs heard things falling and boxes
being opened. (Id. ¶¶ 42, 43, 44.) According to Plaintiffs,
"the Sheriffs systematically opened and searched" each of the
boxes Plaintiffs had packed for their move. (Hanno Dep., at
40-41; Pls.' 56.1(a) ¶ 43.) Defendant denies that the officers
opened sealed boxes during their search, but they admit that it
is Department policy to search closed compartments during the
course of executing an eviction. (Def.'s Res. ¶ 43, 44; Pls.'
56.1(a) ¶ 45.) After searching the house, one of the officers
searched a car belonging to Reitz.*fn4 (Pls.' 56.1 ¶ 46.)

At some point during the encounter, Reitz became extremely
upset and began to cry. (Id. ¶ 52.) Concerned about the effect
of the stressful situation on Reitz's health, and aware that she
suffers from hypertension, Hanno attempted to inform the officers
of Reitz's medical condition and request that they allow her to
leave, but the deputies interrupted, telling him to "shut up."
(Id. ¶¶ 53, 55.) Only after the search of the residence did the
police allow the Reitz and Hanno to step away from the wall and
move out to the front porch. (Def.'s Res. ¶ 54.)

Shortly after moving out to the front porch, Reitz suffered
from a burst blood vessel and lung hemorrhaging and collapsed.
(Pls. 56.1(a) ¶ 58; Reitz Dep., at 43-44.) According to Hanno,
Reitz "was having a severe attack. She couldn't stand up. She
couldn't sit down. She couldn't lay down. She was somebody that
was  she was screaming in agony is what she was doing." (Id. ¶
64.) Plaintiffs assert that the officers refused to allow Reitz
to obtain blood pressure medicine from her purse. (Pls.' 56.1(a)
¶ 59.) Plaintiffs also claim that the police initially refused to
summon medical help, and only relented "after Mr. Hanno
repeatedly begged the officers to call an ambulance." At some
point, one of the officers did summon an ambulance, (Pls.'
56.1(a) ¶ 62; Hanno Dep., at 50-51), but Plaintiffs contend that due to the deputies' initial refusal
to call for medical assistance, "Ms. Reitz suffered from her
heart attack*fn5 for 15 minutes before an ambulance arrived,
despite the fact that the nearest hospital was just down the
road." (Id. ¶ 62; Reitz Dep., at 43-44.) The ambulance crew
refused to permit Hanno to ride along with them to the hospital
and the deputies, who had seized Plaintiffs' car keys, also
refused to allow Hanno to leave and accompany Reitz to the
hospital. (Id. ¶ 65.)

Plaintiffs testified that in the course of their search, the
police "ransacked" their home. (Pls.' 56.1(a) ¶ 42.) In his
deposition, Hanno states, "Every one of our boxes  every one of
our drawers, every possession, every basket, every laundry basket
was opened up, every single thing." (Hanno Dep., at 83.) Reitz
echoes these claims, testifying that "My purse had been gone
through and every single thing was taken out and spread across
the counter top with all the other papers, and my business cards
were taken out." (Reitz Dep., at 50.) Reitz also alleged that she
lost other, less valuable items: "I had like crystals that were
on my windows in my bedroom, not worth a lot in money, but to me
they were. I had a key chain that I had hanging on the crank to
the window in my bedroom, not really valuable except to me that I
never got back, things that were little things that might be
touching to your heart." (Id. at 52.)

Plaintiffs assert that in addition to the items identified
above, the officers "did locate several of the Plaintiffs'
valuables, including Ms. Reitz's antique family jewelry, and Mr.
Hanno's 15th Anniversary ring, which the Plaintiffs never
recovered." (Id. ¶ 67; Hanno Dep., at 59, 75-75; Reitz Dep., at
48-50.) Plaintiffs did not personally witness the deputies steal
their property, but Hanno testified in his deposition as to the
basis for his inference that they are guilty of theft: "I saw
them [the deputies] searching all our belongings and then the
stuff was missing, so I assume they stole. . . . They were in the house. We had the stuff before they came in the
house. They came in, searched our belongs, and left. And when we
went back into the house, the stuff was missing." (Hanno Dep., at
50.) According to Plaintiffs, the movers who accompanied the
deputies to the scene "helped rescue some of the valuable
property from the clutches of the sheriffs." (Id. ¶ 71.) Hanno
testified that at some point while he was standing out on the
front porch, a mover brought a milk carton full of coins out of
the house and gave it to Hanno to protect from the police. (Id.
¶ 72.) Plaintiffs also note that the movers used care in removing
the furniture, which they contrast with the behavior of the
police who were, according to Hanno, "trying to steal our
valuables and terrorize us." (Id. ¶¶ 73, 74.)

The officers admit that even after conducting a thorough search
of the residence, they failed to locate any weapons or other
contraband, (Pls.' 56.1(a) ¶ 66), but Defendant disputes
Plaintiffs' allegations of theft. Both deputies denied taking any
cash or valuables from the residence. (Id. ¶ 69; Def.'s 56.1(a)
¶ 18.) Defendant also stresses that "neither plaintiff saw anyone
physically take their property, never saw anyone take and keep
any property." (Def.'s Res. ¶ 67.) Rather, Plaintiffs only assume
that the officers stole their belongings; they have no direct
evidence to support this assumption. (Id. ¶¶ 68, 69.) The
eviction resulted in Plaintiffs' property being put outside of
the home, leading Deputy Davenport, one of the two Sheriff's
deputies who searched the residence, to surmise that the items
might have been stolen after the police had completed the
eviction and left the residence: "Everything [in the house] is
put out in front of the premises. After we leave I don't know
what happens to it, whether the defendants take it, or it is
stolen." (Davenport Dep., at 54.) Finally, Defendant claims that
the movers were not motivated by police misconduct when they gave
Plaintiffs certain valuable property; as Defendant notes, Hanno
testified that the movers told him, "You better put this away so
nobody takes it," not that "You better put this away so the
police don't take it." (Id. ¶ 71.)

In making their section 1983 claim, Plaintiffs allege that the
officers were acting pursuant to and in accordance with the policies and practices of the Cook
County Sheriff's Department. Hanno testified that the deputies
"were trying to steal our valuables and terrorize us," stating
that they appeared to be operating as part of a "regular routine"
or "mode of operation." (Pls.' 56.1(a) ¶¶ 74, 75.) He described
the police behavior as "perfectly planned": "The only thing I can
say is the way that they operated, it was a regular  it was
perfectly planned. It was like swat team came in there, and they
did what they did, stole our belongings, cleared out without 
they didn't even worry about moving our stuff out of the house."
(Id. ¶ 76; Hanno Dep., at 68.) Plaintiffs also note that
Officer Davenport testified that he had performed thousands of
evictions, described this one as "like any other eviction,"
(Id. ¶ 77; Davenport Dep., at 63), and was not disciplined for
his conduct in this incident. (Id. ¶ 87, 88.)

Officer Matthew Manion, the other deputy involved in the
search, similarly testified that it is the policy of the Cook
County Sheriff's Department to search for weapons during the
course of an eviction without a search warrant. (Id. ¶ 81.) The
existence of such a policy is further corroborated by the
Eviction Unit Worksheet used by the Department, which requires
the officer to note any "Weapons/Contraband Seized." (Id. ¶
85.) According to Defendant, this policy of searching the
premises for weapons and contraband during an eviction is
motivated by concerns "for officer safety and for public safety."
(Def.'s 56.1(a) ¶ 29.) Officer Manion also testified that it is
his practice to monitor private movers who are present at the
eviction. (Pls.' 56.1(a) ¶ 86.) He admitted, however, that the
Department does not inventory property removed from the house in
the course of evictions. (Id. ¶ 82.)

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiff's Allegations

On June 20, 2001, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the Cook County Sheriff's Department
violated their constitutional rights during the eviction. In an
amended complaint, filed on April 8, 2002, Plaintiffs alleged
more specifically that the deputies acted pursuant to Cook County Sheriff's Department policy when they violated
Plaintiffs' Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights during the
course of evicting them from their home. Five of the seventeen
counts, Counts IV, VIII, XI, XV, and XIX, are brought against ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.